← Issue №6/ week of Aug 9, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Colorectal, in full.

All 5 Colorectal papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
IBD9Hepatology14Pancreas/Biliary5Endoscopy16Motility3Colorectal5
Filter

All 5, in full

most clinically useful first
Everything here, in one line each5
Colorectal rct · n=154 · Aug 10, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Three-Row Versus Two-Row Circular Staplers for Low Colorectal Anastomosis After Total Mesorectal Excision: A Single-Center, Randomized, Single-Blind, Phase III Trial (THREESTAPLER Study).

New evidencecolorectal surgery
Clinical takeawayNo change to current practice. Three-row staplers do not offer a leakage reduction advantage over established two-row technique; continue with two-row circular staplers for low anterior resection.
What it foundThree-row circular staplers did not reduce anastomotic leakage compared to two-row staplers (16.9% vs 15.6%, p=0.8); non-inferiority not established.
ContextAnastomotic leakage rates of 15-17% with both stapler types are consistent with current evidence. This negative non-inferiority trial does not support adopting three-row staplers as a technical improvement.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Tulina I … Tsarkov P · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · Aug 14, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Day 1 Discharge for All Patients After Minimally Invasive Colon Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Practice-changingcolorectal surgeryhealth services
Clinical takeawayFor elective minimally invasive colon resection without stoma, target Day 1 discharge in eligible patients using predefined clinical criteria. This reduces median length of stay from 3 to 1 day with no increase in 30-day readmissions or severe complications. Gastroenterologists should counsel patients on this possibility and support the pathway in surgical planning and post-operative management.
What it foundDay 1 discharge rates increased from 4.6% to 65% after implementing a standardized pathway for minimally invasive colon resection without stoma, with no significant change in 30-day readmissions (p=0.43) or severe complications defined as Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIb (p=0.91).
ContextThis builds on ERAS protocol evidence showing that early discharge after minimally invasive colon surgery is safe. Prior studies demonstrated feasibility of discharge within 24-72 hours, but adoption remained variable outside specialized centers. This prospective cohort confirms that systematic Day 1 discharge targeting is safe at scale and can be sustained over time, addressing the implementation gap.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Glazemakers ST … Bloemen JG · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal review · Aug 10, 2026 · JAMA · IF 63.1

Liquid Biopsies for Cancer: A Translational Science Review.

New evidencebiomarkertranslationalcolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayConsider ctDNA testing for colorectal cancer patients to detect molecular relapse earlier than imaging and to identify molecular variants for therapy selection. However, optimal timing of testing and management of positive results in the absence of imaging abnormalities remain unresolved; implementation should await clarity through guidelines or institutional protocols.
What it foundctDNA detects colorectal cancer molecular relapse 8.7 months before standard imaging (median 5.5 vs 14.2 months; P<0.001), and higher ctDNA levels predict recurrence across cancers (e.g., urothelial carcinoma HR 20.69 for worse disease-free survival; 95% CI 9.63-44.43)
ContextctDNA is emerging as an early recurrence marker with strong prognostic correlation. This review synthesizes evidence that molecular relapse detection via ctDNA precedes imaging by months, supporting earlier intervention potential. However, optimal testing intervals, cost-effectiveness, and management of early-positive asymptomatic patients remain unresolved, limiting routine adoption.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Mezzanotte-Sharpe J … Park BH · JAMA · IF 63.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=50 · Aug 10, 2026 · Am J Clin Nutrition · IF 6.5

Inflammation Hinders Anabolic Potential of Nutritional Support in Cancer: Findings from the PRIMe trial.

New evidencebiomarkertranslational
Clinical takeawayIn colorectal cancer (stage II-IV) patients receiving nutritional counseling, target at least 27 grams/day additional protein intake to achieve lean tissue gain. This post-hoc exploratory finding requires prospective validation before practice implementation. IL-6-based personalization is not recommended at this time, as IL-6 is not a standard clinical measure and the proposed effect substantially weakens over 12 weeks.
What it foundIn this post-hoc analysis, baseline IL-6, insulin, and specific amino acids (hydroxyproline, aspartate, taurine) explained 77% of lean tissue response variation at 6 weeks; however, by 12 weeks, IL-6 and methionine explained only 32% of variation, suggesting the effect attenuates over time. Positive lean tissue change occurred at daily protein increase of at least 27 grams.
ContextThis post-hoc mechanistic analysis from a single trial (n=50, stage II-IV colorectal cancer) suggests baseline IL-6 may influence protein anabolism, aligning with known biology. However, the weakening relationship at 12 weeks and post-hoc design indicate the finding is exploratory and may be confounded by unmeasured factors. The concrete finding-27 g/day protein threshold-is most actionable but needs prospective validation.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Engelen MPKJ … Deutz NEP · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · IF 6.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=535 · Aug 10, 2026 · Lancet GH · IF 39.1

A blood-based test for detection of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer (DENEB): a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study.

Diagnosticcolorectal cancercolorectal cancer screeningadenomabiomarker
Clinical takeawayCannot assess clinical utility without results: sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for advanced adenoma detection are not reported in this incomplete abstract.
What it foundDENEB is a blood-based miRNA test developed through EDRN phase I-III validation in multicentre cohorts using RT-qPCR and machine learning to identify circulating miRNAs overexpressed in colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas, but the abstract ends in the methods section and does not report diagnostic accuracy.
ContextBlood-based CRC screening tests (Epi proColon, Septin9, Shield, Galleri-based tests) are emerging but variable advanced adenoma detection limits their prevention impact. This miRNA-based approach represents a potential alternative biomarker class pending performance data.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakewhether blood-based biomarker tests should be adopted as screening tools

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Mannucci A … Goel A · Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 39.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №6 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Colorectal by RSS